DOJ Ordered to Stop Hiding Epstein Co-Conspirators as Judge Sets 2 July Deadline for Full Disclosure

A federal judge has ordered the Department of Justice to stop hiding the identities of Jeffrey Epstein's alleged co-conspirators as part of efforts to secure fuller disclosure of case files. US District Judge Emmet Sullivan issued a preliminary injunction on Thursday directing the department, led by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, to unredact specific materials or explain why redactions should remain.

The order, in a lawsuit filed by independent journalist and attorney Katie Phang, sets a compliance deadline of 2 July.

Materials Targeted By The Order

The ruling focuses on several categories of documents. Redactions must be lifted or justified in at least eight email exchanges between Epstein and others concerning a torture video and sexual activity with young women, including minors. One exchange has been linked to Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem.

Names of potential co-conspirators and co-defendants referenced in a draft indictment of Epstein are to be revealed, together with the identities of DOJ officials involved in internal discussions about them. Foreign language materials that had not been fully reviewed because of language limitations fall under the order.

The department must also address FBI interview notes with a woman who alleged she was introduced to and abused by President Trump as a minor around the age of 13, with the FBI having found her account credible following several interviews. Some pages of her account had previously been missing from releases.

Background To The Epstein Files Transparency Act

The Epstein Files Transparency Act was signed into law by President Trump on 19 November 2025 following bipartisan support in Congress. It required the Attorney General to release all Department of Justice documents and records relating to Epstein, with limited exceptions. On 30 January 2026 the DOJ released more than 3.5 million pages, in addition to more than 2,000 videos and 180,000 images.

Department officials had identified potentially up to six million responsive pages in total. The Act was intended to deliver more comprehensive public access than standard freedom of information processes typically provide, amid long-standing concerns from victims' representatives and lawmakers about incomplete transparency.

Judge Sullivan's Findings On The Case

Judge Sullivan determined that the Attorney General had conceded the department was in violation of the transparency Act. He ruled that Phang had proper standing to pursue the claim under the Administrative Procedure Act and stood a strong chance of success. The judge highlighted concrete injury to the plaintiff, who had identified half a dozen stories she could not report because of the withheld information.

Proposals that Phang pursue a conventional freedom of information request were rejected on the grounds that the specific legislation demands broader disclosure and fewer exemptions. The court denied a government request for at least a seven-day pause to consider an appeal. Katie Phang welcomed the ruling. 'I have standing to be able to get Todd Blanche to comply with Judge Sullivan's order, which is now telling him that on or before July 2, he either has to put up or shut up.

He either has to bring forth unredacted files or show cause as to why he should not or cannot do so. 'The government now has until 2 July to either produce the unredacted versions of the specified materials or submit detailed justifications for maintaining the redactions. The proceedings continue efforts to increase public scrutiny of records from the Epstein investigations.